LAWS(KER)-2010-8-382

SANTHOSH KUMAR PILLAI Vs. STATE LEVEL AUTHORISATION COMMITTEE

Decided On August 13, 2010
SANTHOSH KUMAR PILLAI Appellant
V/S
STATE LEVEL AUTHORISATION COMMITTEE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the second respondent Hospital to forward the joint application of the petitioners seeking approval for transplantation of the kideny of the second petitioner, on the first petitioner. The first respondent is the State Level Authorisation Committee for human organ transplantation as per the Transplantation of the Human Organs Act, 1994. According to the petitioner, the second respondent has, based on the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, namely Ext. P2, intimated that the second petitioner is involved in a criminal case, refused to forward the application to the first respondent. The petitioner submits that, that amounts to taking a decision by the second respondent on a matter which the first respondent alone can take under the provisions of the Act. Petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) I have considered the contentions in detail. Whatever be the opinion of the respondent 2 and respondent 3, in respect of the issue, I am of opinion that, insofar as the statutory authority to decide the matter finally, is the first respondent, the second respondent is bound to forward the joint application of the petitioner along with the opinion of the 3rd respondent to the first respondent and it is for the first respondent to take a final decision in the matter after taking into account of the facts and circumstances of the case in accordance with the statutory provisions. Accordingly, I direct the second respondent to forward the joint application filed by the petitioners to the first respondent within one week from today and the first respondent shall take a decision on the same in its next meeting and communicate the decision to the petitioners and the second respondent immediately thereafter. I make it clear that I have not considered the merits of the contentions of the parties and it is entirely for the first respondent to take a decision in the matter in accordance with the statutory provisions.